Recent Comments

Prev  1308  1309  1310  1311  1312  1313  1314  1315  1316  1317  1318  1319  1320  1321  1322  1323  Next

Comments 65751 to 65800:

65751. Eric (skeptic) at 22:20 PM on 26 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       How much of the heat that is stored in the deep ocean not coming back in decade timescales? I.e. if some deep water is warmed from 35F to 35.1F it will not warm the atmosphere if it rises back to the surface.
65752. Martin Lack at 22:04 PM on 26 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
       Two excellent posts, thank you. I notice that Patrick Michaels is not allowing comments upon his response. Why is that, I wonder?
65753. michael sweet at 21:59 PM on 26 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Tealy, When you make statements that are completely wrong no-one will listen to what you say. Please read some of the extensive background at Skeptical Science about sea level rise before you spout more nonsense. I used the search function with "sea level rise" and got about 30 hits. Please read some of them like how much will sea level rise. Until you have some background knowledge it is difficult to discuss the subject with you. Possible sea level rise from thermal expansion starts immediately (not at 4C, the sea is salt water, not fresh). Thermal rise is estimated at about 1 meter total and immediately flows over the land. Sea level rise from melting ice can be as much as 70 meters. If you do not know the basics you cannot inform anyone else.
65754. Tealy at 21:24 PM on 26 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       RP @47 Not much of the world has land based ice, and that ice melt has to spread out and rise all of the oceans. Its a big ass ocean, so its logical to question the impact of ice melting. The average ocean depth is 4 km, and its the thermal expansion of this 4 km high column that causes the top of the column, sea level, to rise upwards. Eg 1% expansion of 4 km equals 40 metres, but some does flow outwards onto land. Many years since I've seen papers on impact of ice melt vs thermal x, so ill have to google one. Try this from Science Org http://www.science.org.au/nova/082/082key.htm Quote:- "Thermal expansion While thermal expansion is a less obvious process than melting ice (mainly because you can't see it happening) the IPCC projects that thermal expansion will be the main component of expected sea-level rises over the 21st century.".. People say it's ice melting rise because as it's something they can see and touch, but it's a misnomer that should not be propagated. It's wrong, its patronising, and it destroys credibility to change the facts in the belief people wouldn't have understood.
65755. Rob Painting at 20:01 PM on 26 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Tealy -"Ice melt is the lesser component of sea level rise And the recent paper supporting this would be?
65756. Rob Painting at 19:56 PM on 26 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       owl905 - in comment @ 2 you wrote that the title of this article was a disservice to the science, a blatant form of trolling. I pointed out to you that you were wrong, the NASA scientists are very clear on this point. Would it really have hurt for you to read the post or the NASA analysis before posting ill-informed comments? The rest of comment @ 2 has nothing whatsoever to do with the NASA analysis. Now you drag up Keenleyside, and previous predictions of the solar cycle - again nothing to do with the NASA analysis. It appears you are staunchly resistant to actually reading the NASA paper, so I'll make this clear: 1. The solar cycle has already started it's ascent to the peak of the next cycle. It will take around 18 months for this extra heat to manifest itself in global surface temperatures because of the thermal inertia of the oceans. If you think this won't happen please explain how such a thing is possible. 2. As explained in this post El Nino and La Nina are the flip sides of a natural oscillation. They balance out to zero over the long-term. We are overdue a few El Nino, and therefore more rapid warming of surface temperatures. If you think this won't happen in the next 2-3 years it would be interesting to hear how this is possible. 3. Both these natural cycles are large compared to the planetary energy imbalance. So they can have a significant impact if they either oppose or reinforce the global warming signal. If you don't think this is so please enlighten us. 4. And lastly, what you think passes for learned comment is not so here. An anonymous person on the internet is not more qualified than eminent scientists from NASA. Hopefully you have sufficient humility to realize that.
65757. Tealy at 18:43 PM on 26 January 2012
       What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
       Ice melt is the lesser component of sea level rise and sea based ice contributes zero to sea level rise (Archmedes) only land based ice does. Thermal expansion is the main component of sea level rise but only if the water is above 4c and for practical purposes above about 6C. The focus on ice melting is merely something the general population can understand.
65758. owl905 at 18:12 PM on 26 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       @Rob Painting - after citing examples of things that didn't come true, like the Kennlyside model forecast, you want examples. Take your advice about reading and say to the man in the mirror. In 2009, the Maunder crowd feasted on NASA's downward Solar Cycle 24 prediction to a peak of 90 - the lowest in a century. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/29may_noaaprediction/ In 2010, the prediction peak dropped to 70:- http://www.appinsys.com/NASASolar.htm In December 2011, the count hit 98 (and its still a year or two from the curve peak: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/sunspot.gif As to the 'what I think', it's in the original post. Your response is a strawman, inferring that my opinion is a forecast of no imminent warming.
65759. prokaryotes at 17:38 PM on 26 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       Re andylee "I fear it will be too late to mitigate without drastic action and a crash in the quality of life for the majority." I suggest we A) demand mandatory actions from the fossil companies (which rake in record profits and record subsidies) to fast pace transitioning to clean technologies OR B) to size their assets and do it. The question is: "How long do we wait?"
65760. Bob Lacatena at 16:02 PM on 26 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       52, Pirate, You need to study the science well enough to correct the following misstatements:
       • human activities contribute to [cause] it
       • no one knows [climate scientists know] how [very] bad it may or may not [could] be [as well as at a minimum how bad it will be]
       Can I presume from your closing statements that you will begin better educating your students and fellow teachers (and yourself) on at least some of the gravity of climate science? Or is it simply easy to say "act immediately" but easier to drive by SkS and say whatever you can to influence people to do the opposite? As a teacher and someone involved directly in environmental action, can you take the position of The National Center for Science Education to heart, and follow through with it?
65761. Rob Painting at 15:27 PM on 26 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       Actually Thoughtful - "But given that the skeptics are trying to make a science issue political, it doesn't make any sense to give them any ammunition whatsoever." Once again, this is not ammunition for fake-skeptics, it is an analysis of the scientific evidence. My challenge to him applies to you as well - if you think there's something wrong with the NASA analysis let's see what it is. The contribution of La Nina, and the cool phase of the solar cycle, to global temperature is rather large compared to Earth's radiation imbalance (i.e global warming). "Let the observations speak for themselves." The woman and man in the street isn't going to be able to make sense of the observations, especially with distortions by fake-skeptics. That's why we exist - to communicate this information in a, hopefully, comprehensible manner. To expect a public audience to be able to process this information without guidance is foolish. "Let the skeptics show their colors by either understanding the nuance, or not" No nuance necessary, both posts clearly spell out that the La Nina/El Nino phenomenon is cyclic, ergo it will not contribute to any long-term trend. Neither will the 11-year solar cycle - as pointed out in part 2. The small (in relative terms) but persistent, increase in greenhouse gases is causing global warming. The conclusion in part 2 makes this very explicit.
65762. apiratelooksat50 at 15:26 PM on 26 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       Sphaerica at 49 Again you are proving yourself very adept at applying your misconceptions to my comments. Furthermore, you are making assumptions for which you have zero basis other than your own bias. I only commented on the first bullet from the NCSE Climate 101 page. And, out of that bullet I only questioned the extinction statement. How you can so inaccurately infer my thoughts on the other three bullet points is beyond comprehension and reflects your own ideology. The first bullet point on the NCSE website could be more accurately reworded to state: ..."and contribution to the extinction of plant and animal species"... For instance, from the IUCN website on the Golden Toad (that Painting and Paul D referenced) they list the following major threats: "Its restricted range, global warming, chytridiomycosis and airborne pollution probably contributed to this species' extinction." Essentially they say what I would like to see and consider more accurate. And, for the last time I will reiterate my thoughts on climate change: it is happening (always has), human activities contribute to it, no one knows how bad it may or may not be, and in the meantime we should be acting immediateley and responsibly in the areas of conservation of resources and the R/D of new dependable energy technology that will enable us to move away from fossil fuel use.
65763. Daniel Bailey at 14:49 PM on 26 January 2012
       Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
       

       "He also links to a town hall meeting at University of Michigan (Yooper country)"

       Nay, dat be Troll Country ('cause deys from below Da Bridge, eh?).
65764. actually thoughtful at 14:48 PM on 26 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       Andylee, based on the evidence I predict the following: 1. Deny it happening until that is 100% untenable. (We are about 50% through this - I still see "skeptics" in their native habitat darkly riding down the up escalator). 2. Ratchet up the "there is no direct evidence that CO2 is to blame" - ie natural causes, the sun, cosmic rays, warming out of the ice age, climate has been changing for billions of years. This will be played until the end, whatever the end is. The next El Nino spike will be the last realistic chance of changing major government policy and being effective for this century (with relatively minor changes spread over decades). 3. "There is nothing we can do about it" - ironically, the longer the skeptics are allowed to free range roam without the people rising up and demanding the established science be acknowledged and acted upon - the more true this one is. I personally take it as self-evident that this is the goal of the whole operation, insofar as rational thought is involved in anyway.
65765. actually thoughtful at 14:39 PM on 26 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
       Dana - in evaluating Hansen's 1988 paper in relation to Skeie's work - is it more valid to consider GHG only, or Anthro?
       Response:

       [dana1981] See my comment #16 in part 1.  Short answer, it depends on what you're evaluating.  If you want to know about the model accuracy, then you should look at the net forcing, because the model is simulating the climate response to the net forcing.  It just so happens that Hansen only input GHG forcings (and a couple volcanic eruptions) into his model.

65766. andylee at 14:38 PM on 26 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       @actually thoughtful, these explicit graphs should finally expose cognitively-challenged climate skeptics' attempts to subvert the obvious and embarrass them off the field. They are behaving just like turkeys trying to convince everyone else to vote for Thanksgiving Day.
65767. apiratelooksat50 at 14:33 PM on 26 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       Stephen at 48 I have no objection to your last paragraph. I think your rationale is accurate and would not pose an argument to it. Some will benefit, some will suffer. But, as we know things now, they will certainly change.
65768. Tom Curtis at 14:16 PM on 26 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
       For any readers who are unsure of the maths, a linear growth rate is a constant absolute growth rate in absolute termw, while an exponential growth rate means a constant percentage growth rate. With variable growth percentages, we take the geometric mean to determine the constant growth rate over a period that would have resulted in the same growth rate. Having done so, we find that the geometric mean of the growth rate in CO2 concentrations from 1978-1987 was 0.436%, while that from 1998-2007 was 0.515%, a clear increase, or more than exponential growth. In contrast, the geometric mean of the growth rate over the period 1988-1997, the period covered by Michaels' testimony, was 0.387%, a clear decline from the previous decade, and hence less than exponential growth. Indeed, as Albatross's graph shows above, for much of that decade, CO2 levels did not even maintain linear growth. For what it is worth, the geometric mean of growth rates in CO2 over the period 1988-97 in Hansen's scenarios are: Scenario A: 0.475% Scenario B: 0.470% Scenario C: 0.422% In other words, the growth rate in CO2 concentration over the period covered by Michaels testimony was two thirds as much below that in Scenario C ( 0.035%) as Scenario A was above Scenario C (0.053%), and seventeen times as much below Scenario B (0.087%) as scenario A was above Scenario B (0.005%). On that basis, apparently, Michaels concluded that scenario A GHG concentrations matched reality sufficiently better than Scenario B or C that the latter two could be excluded without comment.
65769. actually thoughtful at 14:12 PM on 26 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       I think owl905 raises a good point. I personally expect an El Nino, this year or next (this year would be much, much better from a US policy point of view). But warming doesn't end natural variation - we could get a triple dip La Nina. A weak El Nino. Stay ENSO neutral for 5 years. These outcomes are less likely. But given that the skeptics are trying to make a science issue political, it doesn't make any sense to give them any ammunition whatsoever. Let the observations speak for themselves. If warming is showing up at the decadal level for 30 years or more - than one can certainly claim the warming signal is so strong it even shows up at at the decadal level. But now or later, should the warming not show up for a given decade (solar influence, super La Nina, high volcanism, major aerosols (as a few vectors a 10 year flat or ever-so-slightly cooler could appear)) - those who ignore the science in favor of the political will again give shrill voice to the skeptic argument. While I respect this came from climate scientists at NASA I share Owl905's vague sense of unease that this could become fodder for the anti-science political propagandists. (Note the linked web page from NASA in the OP sheds light on all of the above and suggests the notably warmer part of the cycle is more likely in 2013 or 2014). I think on balance, I like the prediction. Because it is short term, very likely to be true, and if it isn't you could go right back to that page and look at the events the authors claim will cause the warming and observe they didn't happen. Let the skeptics show their colors by either understanding the nuance, or not.
65770. muoncounter at 13:46 PM on 26 January 2012
       Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
       Climate Crocks has another interview with Dr. Hayhoe. He also links to a town hall meeting at University of Michigan (Yooper country) Cures for Climate Confusion.
65771. John Hartz at 12:48 PM on 26 January 2012
       Katharine Hayhoe's labour of love inspires a torrent of hate
       “Even as the impacts of climate change intensify, many Americans remain confused by the issue. In an interview Yale Environment 360, climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe discusses what rising temperatures will mean for the U.S., how to talk with climate skeptics, and what she would say to Texas Gov. Rick Perry to prod him into action on global warming.” Source: “How to Find Common Ground in the Bitter Climate Debate”, Yale Environment 360, Aug 25, 2011 Click here to access this informative Q&A.
65772. Albatross at 11:23 AM on 26 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
       Barry @22, "Is it that the trend in CO2 accumulation for the specific period Michaels examined is NOT exponential, where it IS exponential in longer time periods and/or in more recent times?" In short yes, the "faster than exponential" applies when one look sat the entire Mauna Loa time series-- at least as far as I can tell. But to the issue at hand. The graph below that Tamino generated represents the "linear regression slope for 10-year intervals with start times spaced 1 year apart". So the rate in 1998 is the rate over the preceding ten years. Note what happens between 1988 and 1998-- there is marked dip with the decadal rate started to decrease in 1983-1993 with the minimum decadal rate observed for 1988-1998. [Source] What happened between 1988 and 1998 was not BAU as Michaels claimed-- Michaels was flat out wrong.
65773. barry1487 at 11:06 AM on 26 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 1
       Reading that CO2 increase has not been exponential in the Michaels rebuttals here over the past week or so, I had this nagging memory that Tamino had come up with a different conclusion, so today I checked back.

       "Over time, the growth of CO2 has NOT been linear, but it also has NOT been exponential. It’s been faster than exponential (as the logarithm has grown faster-than-linear, i.e., it has accelerated). And yes, the acceleration of log(CO2) (the faster-than-exponential growth of CO2) is statistically significant... ... Note that the rate is increasing overall, it’s even increasing recently; the last 10-year interval has a higher growth rate than the 1-year-preceding interval."

       http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/monckey-business/ He says the same in a follow-up post. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/mo-better-monckey-business/ Tamino doesn't examine the exact period under discussion here. Is it that the trend in CO2 accumulation for the specific period Michaels examined is NOT exponential, where it IS exponential in longer time periods and/or in more recent times? It would seem so eyeballing the graphs hither and thither, but it would be nice to have that confirmed by someone with skillz.
65774. Rob Painting at 10:33 AM on 26 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       Sphaerica- "and even if it is it won't be bad" Well, the birds, butterflies, lizards and amphibians that have already become extinct from global warming paint a rather different picture. As far as amphibians are concerned, it's hard to see much of a future for many of them. Their current rate of extinction may be 25,039–45,474 times the background extinction rate for amphibians. And that is not a typo.
65775. Rob Honeycutt at 09:38 AM on 26 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       andylee... If you look at the top of the page, 570px still breaks the formatting of the page.
65776. Bob Lacatena at 09:31 AM on 26 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       48, Stephen, But that's not the problem. Pirate's problem is that it hasn't happened yet, ever, anywhere, and therefore the NCSE bullet point on the subject of exinctions is wrong, and therefore all of their bullet points are suspect, and therefore Pirate doesn't want to teach what they say, and therefore Pirate will tell his students and everyone he knows what he has been telling them all along, which is that climate change isn't happening, isn't anthropogenic, and even if it is it won't be bad, or if it is, it isn't bad yet, and we should all sort of wait and see and keep doing what we're doing in homage to the name of the Great God the Economy.
65777. Stephen Baines at 08:54 AM on 26 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       As far as I know, apirate is accurately reflecting the current trend of thinking with regard to the effect of climate on chytrid related extinctions -- in the Andes at least. There are a couple caveats, though. For one, the hypothesis for climate effects on chytrid infestation being tested in those papers is a very specific one -- namely that warming led to expansion of the chytrid range into that of the frogs, and that then led to the potential for infection and the extinctions. There are other possible mechanisms which are harder to test, though, especially on extinct species. One is that climate changes led to compromised immunity, which facilitated the movement of the disease through the population. Such immunocompromise is fairly frequent at the edges of species ranges, where environmental conditions are at the limit of a species tolerances. The thinking is that organisms at their physiological limits either expend all available energy compensating for stress, or experience some breakdown in a critical process that leads to poor performance. Because of their narrow environmental tolerances, endemic environmental specialists of the sort most commonly made extinct by chytrid are particularly prone to this effect. In this way of thinking, the chytrid is just the coup de grace that puts the species already suffering from changing climate away. It should be noted that there are clear examples of climate mediated extinction of species declines outside of the Andes - for example in central America and the SE US. Which is the right mechanism by which changing climate acts on species and what constitutes a direct and which an indirect effect? Frankly, in conservation biology it matters not a jot. What matters is what would happen if a particular factor under our control was altered in some way; would the prospects for a species persistence improve or worsen? More generally, when thinking of biodiversity loss, it's very hard to make a credible argument that changing climate will not, on average, have a net negative influence on the persistence of species, especially those with poor dispersal and high habitat fidelity. If there is such an argument, I'd love to hear it.
65778. les at 07:57 AM on 26 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       46 - thanks, yes I did check it out in wiki and saw similar. (http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2646). As pointed out above, ecologists are complex interconnected systems; a week link here, a pathogen there - and also links disceplens... I'd trust the biologist to know that such extinction events are enhanced by increase in climate variability: but not the origin of that variability.
65779. andylee at 07:41 AM on 26 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       The figures for arctic warming are even more scary. Arctic Temperatures Continue Rapid Rise as 2011 Breaks Record Set in 2010 [John, new layout? Your html guidelines need updating from 450px to 570px width!]
       Response:

       [DB] Resized image width down to 500 pixels due to page layout breaking.

65780. apiratelooksat50 at 07:39 AM on 26 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       Les at 43 There are other scientists with peer reviewed papers who think otherwise. From amphibiaweb.org. "However, Lips et al. (2008) reanalyzed the data of Pounds et al. (2006), and argued that the climate-linked epidemic hypothesis was not supported, as did Rohr et al. (2008). Anchukaitis and Evans (2010) reconstructed a century of climatic data for Monteverde, Costa Rica, and suggested that cloud forest ecology changes have been driven by natural variability in the local climate (in particular, extreme dry periods associated with El Niño weather patterns) rather than by anthropogenic climate forcing."
65781. Bob Lacatena at 07:30 AM on 26 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       42, Pirate, From Thomas, 2006:

       Pounds et al. conclude that climate has been triggering fungal epidemics: approxi- mately 80% of the Atelopus species that have disappeared were last seen following a hot year. Cold nights inhibit fungal growth at high elevations, whereas hot days con- strain it at low elevations. In recent decades, night-time temperatures have increased and peak day-time tempera- tures have decreased (because of increased cloudiness), both of which favour the fungus. The optimal climate range for the fungus has moved up into the geographical ranges of susceptible frogs. As a result, over 90% of the harlequin frog species that used to be restricted to mid-elevations (1000–2400 m) are thought to have become extinct [8].

65782. Bob Lacatena at 07:26 AM on 26 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       42, Pirate, Hmm, interesting that you can put that much time into researching an issue that you presume justifies your complete disdain for the concept of climate change, and yet you can't find time to research actual climate science -- the thing that you love to be so vocal about refusing to accept. But good for you, you're on the right track. You took the time to research a problem past the surface, and to learn more about it. Now if only you can apply that approach more properly and consistently to everything, instead of just the stuff that bugs you.
65783. les at 07:19 AM on 26 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       FWIW Mark Lynas (Six Degrees: our future on a hotter planet) explicitly touches on the above Golden Toad as the first documented climate change related extinction. He also notes the issues around chytrid etc. so: - this is now a pretty old story. - this is in chapter 1 (1° hotter) out of 6. - maybe folks teaching climate change could do worse than following David Archers' ( U of Chicago, Climate 101) advice in making the above a course book....
65784. Rob Painting at 06:47 AM on 26 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       owl905 - "The title does a disservice to the science" Maybe you just can't read? Here's how the NASA scientists end their analysis: "We conclude that the slowdown of warming is likely to prove illusory, with more rapid warming appearing over the next few years" Don't hand the pro-pollutionists short-term ice-cubes to keep delaying a response Dude, no one is handing fake-skeptics anything. It's very likely to get warmer over the next few years - that's what actual experts on the topic have found. I don't see that this is that difficult to grasp, the solar cycle is on it's upward (warmer) phase, and La Nina is eventually going to be replaced by the warm phase El Nino. Well, warm phase as far as humans are concerned - as the blog post makes clear the oceans cool as heat is lost to the atmosphere during El Nino. Now if you think this isn't going to happen I'd like to hear your reasoning, and citations supporting this. Otherwise you're just waving your arms.
65785. John Hartz at 05:57 AM on 26 January 2012
       A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
       Dana’s OP has been summarized by RP Siegel in “What Are the Real Causes of Global Warming?” posted (Jan 25, 2012) on Triple Pundit. Sigel’s insightful opening paragraph: “The folks at Skeptical Science have put together a review of various scientific investigations into the causes of global warming, in hopes of coming up with a definitive answer. This seems like a good time to do this, in the midst of Republican primary season, as the various candidates try to one-up each other on bashing the science in lieu of what their supporters would prefer to hear.”
65786. owl905 at 05:28 AM on 26 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       The title does a disservice to the science. At the time of the Keenlyside modelling news (predicting at extended lull in AGW), statements were issued by sane scientists that there's nothing in AGW that precludes even a decade of pause - other influences have very strong short and medium signals. But ever since Lintzen gave his notorious interview to the NY Times in 2004, claiming that global warming stopped in 1998, there has been this absurd 'stare at the tea-kettle' pattern. Maunder-minimums, solar lulls, cosmic rays, and 'you-just-wait' from all sides ... it just don't work that away! The key certainties are the properties of the pollution, the energy imbalance, and the pH alteration. If the current drivers get locked in, double-dip La Nina's could pour deep-stored cool back into the atmosphere for decades. It's a zero-sum game so eventually it loses force. The only guess from the palaeoclimate record is that it could be a major force for up to 800 years (the deep-current cycle). Don't hand the pro-pollutionists short-term ice-cubes to keep delaying a response. Waiting for 'our new numbers' to fight 'their old numbers' is a fuels paradise. What counts is the observations - growing widespread extreme events and disruptions. We've been in the paradigm for decades, and the real issue is where it hits next ... and next ... and next ...
65787. apiratelooksat50 at 04:55 AM on 26 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       Sphaerica at 40 Your facts are off and the analogy you presented fails miserably. The chytrid fungus is believed to be originally from Africa where it resides in local amphibian populations who have resistance to it. It was inadvertantly spread around the world originally through the actions of humans: live food trade, aquarium trade, scientific research, and boats and other equipment. Once established in other locations it can be spread by wildlife. One frog in particular, the African Clawed Frog (Xenophus laevis), has widely been transported for the above reasons. I can remember using them for experiments in high school labs, and it was even used as a human pregnancy test subject. This frog was released, or escaped, into the wild and we have various locales in North America where they are breeding. They carried the fungus with them and thus chytrid became established in our waters and our native amphibians who mostly had no resistance became infected. With no resistance, populations of different frog species throughout North and Central America were wiped out. An adequate analogy would be the introduction of the smallpox virus to the Native American population. (One of our native frogs, the Bullfrog (Rana catesbiana), does have resistance to the fungus and is also transported around the world for the same reasons and appears to be a secondary disease vector.) So, it is not your simplistic view of the fungus sitting here quietly and having no effect and then being activated by temperature changes, but instead what I referenced in the above paragraph. The optimum temperature for the chytrid fungus is 63 - 77 degrees F. Interestingly, organisms exposed the fungus have greater survivability at the higher end of the temperature range. The St. Louis Zoo even used elevated temperatures (90 degree F) to eradicate a chytrid outbreak in their hellbender recovery project. Even with that in mind, climate change does not get off the hook. From www.amphibiaweb.org "Amphibians are extremely sensitive to small changes in temperature and moisture. Changes in global weather patterns (e.g. El Niño events or global warming) can alter breeding behavior, affect reproductive success, decrease immune functions and increase amphibian sensitivity to chemical contaminants." And, finally, even the experts consider the chytrid mortality - climate change link to be "indirect" as referenced here.
65788. Rob Honeycutt at 04:28 AM on 26 January 2012
       NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future (part 1)
       I've long been telling climate "skeptics" that the "lull" in warming isn't an indicator of coming cooling, it's an indicator of a coming phase of rapid warming. To quote Stephen Schneider in the video posted on SkS a few weeks ago, "You can't add 4W/m-2 to the planet and expect that it's not going to get warmer." That's just physics. I'm expecting a whopper of an El Nino sometime in the next few years.
65789. apiratelooksat50 at 03:58 AM on 26 January 2012
       The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
       pbjamm at 39, There may be a causal effect between climate change and the spread of epidemic disease as described in the Pounds paper. In that case the variable of the climate causes a change in the variable of the disease. That should be considered an indirect effect. (FWIW - I do tend to support that hypothesis due to the clumping behavior of certain organsims during periods of drought.) The drought itself would be the direct effect. Other changes in weather patterns, such as frost, would also be direct effects. Other more recent research has also shown that climate change may not be linked to the chytrid outbreak as referenced in this abstract from the peer reviewed paper by Lips, et al (2008) which can be found here. "We review the evidence for the role of climate change in triggering disease outbreaks of chytridiomycosis, an emerging infectious disease of amphibians. Both climatic anomalies and disease-related extirpations are recent phenomena, and effects of both are especially noticeable at high elevations in tropical areas, making it difficult to determine whether they are operating separately or synergistically. We compiled reports of amphibian declines from Lower Central America and Andean South America to create maps and statistical models to test our hypothesis of spatiotemporal spread of the pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), and to update the elevational patterns of decline in frogs belonging to the genus Atelopus. We evaluated claims of climate change influencing the spread of Bd by including error into estimates of the relationship between air temperature and last year observed. Available data support the hypothesis of multiple introductions of this invasive pathogen into South America and subsequent spread along the primary Andean cordilleras. Additional analyses found no evidence to support the hypothesis that climate change has been driving outbreaks of amphibian chytridiomycosis, as has been posited in the climate-linked epidemic hypothesis. Future studies should increase retrospective surveys of museum specimens from throughout the Andes and should study the landscape genetics of Bd to map fine-scale patterns of geographic spread to identify transmission routes and processes."
65790. Ari Jokimäki at 03:25 AM on 26 January 2012
       New research from last week 3/2012
       Ahh, sorry. Perfectly good joke wasted just because of my limited English skills. Well, actually I think the mainstream cosmology is already considering parallel universes existing, so if that's true, then there already are several copies of you reading the abstracts right now. I don't know if my copies selected the same abstracts, though.
65791. John Hartz at 02:49 AM on 26 January 2012
       New research from last week 3/2012
       OPatrick: Although Sks does not currently have the resources needed to create a parallel universe, it is actively pursuing the purchase of a state-of-the-art cloning device. The residents of Deniersville will go bonkers once we successfully replicate Dana.
65792. OPatrick at 02:00 AM on 26 January 2012
       New research from last week 3/2012
       Sorry Ari, just a flippant comment. I cut into my sleep enough as it is trying to maintain a busy work and family life whilst keeping up to date enough with the lastest issues to be able to argue on the side of sanity. What I really need is a spare 24 hours a day to read and digest the huge volume of material you've pointed us to here, which as you say is still just the tip of the iceberg - i.e. I need a parallel lifetime.
65793. Tristan at 01:09 AM on 26 January 2012
       Debunking Handbook: update and feedback
       Tom I think your benchmark for whether or not you advocate nuclear power is probably too high. We shouldn't simply be comparing nuclear power's socio-economic costs to that of renewable power in some sort of absolute sense. We should be comparing the impact of pushing for the adoption of both nuclear and renewable energy sources vs pushing for renewable sources without nuclear. The resources and public, private and gov't attitudes to researching and rolling out renewable and nuclear power sources aren't mutually inclusive. That is to say, we will be able to improve our socio-eco-enviro situation faster (by removing fossil fuels from the energy grid) if we engage in the promotion of both alternative power sources.
65794. Kevin C at 00:48 AM on 26 January 2012
       Debunking Handbook: update and feedback
       I'd add one more criterion to Tom's list. I'd like a future reactor design to be able to maintain containment and a stable temperature without external services from within minutes of a shutdown. In an increasingly unstable geopolitical environment, an event leading to loss of external services with minimal warning seems to be an increasingly plausible scenario. As far as I am aware, no Gen3+ design meets this criteria. I think some Gen4 designs may do so. The Hyperion and Toshiba 4S reactors are both small scale fast reactors with liquid metal coolant, which thus appear to draw on the IFR research. (Probably the FUJI MSR does as well). See the article List of small nuclear reactor designs for more.
65795. Kevin C at 20:56 PM on 25 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
       Dana quoted:

       "Temperature change from climate models, including that reported in 1988 (12), usually refers to temperature of surface air over both land and ocean. Surface air temperature change in a warming climate is slightly larger than the SST change (4), especially in regions of sea ice. Therefore, the best temperature observation for comparison with climate models probably falls between the meteorological station surface air analysis and the land–ocean temperature index."

       Ah - a penny drops. That's why when no other data is available, GISTEMP extrapolates land temperatures over ocean but not the other way round. In recent decades this only occurs over sea ice, since the weather station and SST coverage are good enough to cover the rest of the planet. The asymmetry had been bugging me.
65796. RonManley at 20:50 PM on 25 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
       In reply to various comments above, I admit that the two examples I quoted were not fully equivalent. Michaels deliberately excised part of a graph (he has argued that it was valid); Mann may have just have been sloppy. Behind these specific examples there are I think two points: 1. Both presentations were to a lay audience; congress in the one case, the audience at a wide ranging event with a diversity of speakers in the other. Since it would be easy to ‘pull the wool over the eyes’ of such people, an ethical approach to climate science would require a high standard of transparency even at some risk of diluting the message. 2. In the long run it is important to demand the same rigour of those you agree with as of those you disagree with, a point which many of the comments above accept.
65797. Ari Jokimäki at 20:43 PM on 25 January 2012
       New research from last week 3/2012
       Thank you all for compliments. I have to note that these posts are not a good reflection of the number of studies each week. I only include those that I have found especially interesting. Hundreds of climate related papers are published each week. I only point out a few of them. Most of them would deserve to be included here. Sorry OPatrick, I don't understand what parallel lifetime means in this context (I do understand the words separately).
65798. OPatrick at 19:44 PM on 25 January 2012
       New research from last week 3/2012
       Another big thumbs up here. Also I like the teaser questions at the start - maybe the answers could be given seprately, or we could be left to puzzle them out. A parallel lifetime would help to give a chance of reading and digesting it all though - any chance of arranging that?
65799. Tom Curtis at 17:31 PM on 25 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
       Owl905 @19, the context of the usage of this particular graph is: 1) Mann identifies scenario B as the scenario we have followed most closely ("... it turns out we have more or less followed that medium scenario ..." 2:18); 2) He claims Hansen's prediction was accurate ("... the warming predicted by the model is pretty much spot on ..." 2:26 ); and 3) He claims the prediction is a two decade prediction (so that's a very successful two decade in advance prediction." 2:32) But, rather than showing two decades of data (1988-2008) he only shows 17 years (1988-2005). He does not mention the absent data, and given that the talk occurred in 2011, there is no good reason for the absent data. Further, as discussed above, he did not show the most relevant temperature series, and he does not mention that he is not using the most appropriate temperature data. He does indicate that the observed data is "Observed weather station data" on the graph, but that would be by no means clear to the audience, and he certainly does not explain to the audience the difference between the land station only data, which he shows, and the land/ocean data which he should have shown. In other words, he does not in anyway provide the necessary context which would justify the choices made in presenting that graph. Readers are certainly welcome to review the talk (which is otherwise very good). I should note that: a) Mann does terminate other graphs early, but so far as I know that is of no consequence as the other early terminations do not distort the data. It is, however, an indication of sloppiness in presentation. b) Dana has shown that properly presented, Hansen's 2008 projections are remarkably accurate, suffering only from the fact that the climate sensitivity of his model is too high. That means the model does show that anthropogenic forcings are the dominant influence on global temperature change (excluding over very short term periods); and that with a corrected climate sensitivity, it means we are in very serious trouble if we do not curtail emissions. But none of these points mean that Mann did not make a mistake in the graph he used in the presentation. He should acknowledge the mistake, and correct it before using that slide again in future.
65800. owl905 at 15:28 PM on 25 January 2012
       Patrick Michaels Continues to Distort Hansen 1988, Part 2
       Curtis @17 Taking the time to actually go back and view the context would be more valuable than continued judgmental statements with an assumption of "error". In fact, in other graphs the end-point is even earlier - 2000 or 2002. And that's because of the context of the usage: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/lectures/index.php There's no error in those graphs, as is, within the context of his usage. Mann even references model holding up to a decades test. It isn't deceptive or erroneous, and Ron Manley's chum-statement that the data was truncated is in the same league as "hide the decline".

Prev  1308  1309  1310  1311  1312  1313  1314  1315  1316  1317  1318  1319  1320  1321  1322  1323  Next